Thursday, June 21, 2012

U.K. Study: The Most Harmful Drug of All? Alcohol

"Alcohol is more dangerous than illegal drugs like heroin and crack cocaine, according to a new study. British experts evaluated substances including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana, ranking them based on how destructive they are to the individual who takes them and to society as a whole.

Researchers analyzed how addictive a drug is and how it harms the human body, in addition to other criteria like environmental damage caused by the drug, its role in breaking up families and its economic costs, such as health care, social services, and prison.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine, or crystal meth, were the most lethal to individuals. When considering their wider social effects, alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the deadliest. But overall, alcohol outranked all other substances, followed by heroin and crack cocaine. Marijuana, ecstasy and LSD scored far lower (see chart above)."

Here's a link to the full text of the article "Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis," and a summary of the key findings:

"Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) modeling showed that heroin, crack cocaine, and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals (part scores 34, 37, and 32, respectively), whereas alcohol, heroin, and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others (46, 21, and 17, respectively). Overall, alcohol was the most harmful drug (overall harm score 72), with heroin (55) and crack cocaine (54) in second and third places (see chart above)."

Note: The first 21 comments below appeared following the original post in November 2010.

60 Comments:

It would be interesting to see the results based on a "per user" criterion since there are far more "occasional drinkers" who have virtually no impact on themselves or others versus users of heroin or meth or crack where there are virtually no "occasional users."

"Second, I can show a health benefit of two glasses of wine. Got anything for two joints? Aside from if you have glaucoma, that is."

If your argument against legalizing drugs is limited to considering only health benefits, I think you have missed the mark on marijuana. It has a long history of medicinal use, and many legitimate uses for a variety of medical problems. Far more, in fact, than alcohol, which you defend on the basis of health benefits.

Remember that alcohol was re-legalized after an explosion of criminal activity, and huge increases in law enforcement costs due to its prohibition, were acknowledge to far out weigh the social costs of its legal use.

Similarly, It might be time to consider some alternative after 39 years of a failed 'War On Drugs' that has cost over $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives while not making the slightest dent in drug use or traffic. If there is a demand for something, it will be supplied.

If your problem is with people getting high, you should say so, and base your argument on that. If it is with the idea of people using substances that are harmful to them and that are without medical benefit, then you could have included something about criminalizing tobacco in your comment.

It would be interesting to see the results based on a "per user" criterion since there are far more "occasional drinkers" who have virtually no impact on themselves or others versus users of heroin or meth or crack where there are virtually no "occasional users."

Actually, it makes no difference if an individual CHOOSES to consume something that does harm to him/her as long as no harm is done to others. Most of the societal problems with illegal drugs have nothing to do with the drugs themselves but with the fact that they are illegal.

Let us enter into an era of prohibiting alcohol and makings its sale illegal and we can compare the harm fairly. I think that you would admit that we have already done that and that it ended very badly.

Vange... you're back! As you might have noticed, my comment said nothing about the legality or otherwise of consuming drugs versus alcohol... only that deleterious effects of consumption should be measured on a per user basis to get a better indicator of the impact of such use.

A libertarian point of view would be that it makes no difference; a more realistic point of view is that there are real cost differences to both users and the community based on the negative effects of the used substances. And as long as the community has to step up to those costs, there should be some say in the creation of those costs.

Of course, the community can eliminate most of the costs if all community paid services are withheld from substance users who would have to figure out some way to obtain money for their habits after they lost their means of income due to incapacitation from the substances... some way....

"...only that deleterious effects of consumption should be measured on a per user basis to get a better indicator of the impact of such use."

I don't see how this would be possible on an apples to apples basis without legalizing drugs so that only effects actually associated with use are measured, and to ensure a reliable sample of reporting users who otherwise might be reluctant to provide information.

"And as long as the community has to step up to those costs, there should be some say in the creation of those costs."

This is the same argument used to mandate seat belt usage, motorcycle helmets, how much water I can use when I take a shower, and soon the amount of salt I'm allowed to put on my food.

The problem here, is the idea that the community 'has to step up'. If the community is upset about paying for others stupid actions, then it should quit 'stepping up'.

“While alcohol and the disease of alcoholism do ruin lives and families, the recent British study's results do not necessarily represent what is true in America. It is true that alcohol is the most widely used drug in America, however there is a tremendous epidemic of heroin, meth, and crack use in our country--treatment centers are filled with young addicts. The drug cartels are successfully marketing drugs to our youth and have made it easier for middle school students to get heroin than beer.--Jeff ChristianFounder of the Number 12 Foundationwww.number­12foundati­on.org”

"People shoule be responsible for their own burial. If they are not and drop dead on the street, should the community step up?"

Well, it seems strange that you should consider dying to be a stupid action, but you could possibly answer your own question by taking your head out, and looking around your own community and observing what happens now when someone drops dead in the street.

I don't know that the "community" as an entity would do anything like 'stepping up', but I can imagine individual members doing one of the following in such a situation:

As people are naturally generous, someone might be kind enough to call the corpse's next of kin, if it could be identified. Relatives often want to know about such things, and sometimes even have plans for just such an eventuality.

Someone in more of a hurry might call your local Dept. of Public Works, or just dial 911 to report a traffic hazard.

If nothing else, there may be a weekly schedule for street sweepers near you that will take care of the problem if nothing else is done.

If you are concerned about being a problem yourself if you should drop dead in the street, you might want to carry a card with with you at all times that says something like this:

"If you have found me dead in the street, please call Joe's Mortuary at 555-555-5555 to arrange for immediate pickup, as I have purchased a prepaid plan for body retrieval service from them."

As is usual with you, you have begun typing before you had anything meaningful to say.

Don't be cute about every drug user being a felon because drugs are illegal. How many felonies not including the felony of being a user? You know, robberies, assaults, murders, etc.

Simply saying that alcohol on an absolute basis is a bigger problem than hard drugs which are more difficult and risky to come by is true, but meaningless. Given the same accessibility, hard drugs would become a significantly greater problem.

As I wrote before, I don't think we can know those number. The only drug users we know of are those who have had legal or medical trouble due to their use, so it could easily appear that most people who use drugs get in trouble. We aren't likely to hear about any "casual users" who don't get into trouble. A survey might indicate that there are no drug users at all, as no one is going to admit to engaging in illegal activity.

"How many felonies not including the felony of being a user? You know, robberies, assaults, murders, etc."

A tremendous number of felonies are committed because - drugs are illegal! Users often resort to illegal means to pay for the expensive product they want, and suppliers go to even greater lengths to deliver those products to their customers. How else would you expect it to be?

The hard drugs you mention are relatively inexpensive to produce, but very expensive to deliver to the end user, thus creating lucrative opportunities for those willing to take high risks and ignore the law. But you already know all that. You understand that if there is a market for something it will be supplied.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't use drugs myself, and don't recommend it. I think it's a really stupid idea, but I acknowledge that some people do use them, and I can see that forbidding their use hasn't been much of a deterrent, but has only kept prices high and cost hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement efforts and hundreds of thousands of lives. When do you think we should admit that the 'War on Drugs' has failed?

"Given the same accessibility, hard drugs would become a significantly greater problem."

You are assuming that there are a large number of people who would love to do drugs but don't because it's illegal. I don't agree. In my opinion, almost everyone who wants to use drugs is already doing so whether it's legal or not, and those who don't want to, are not. There might be a few on the margin, but I believe that number is really small.

On the other hand, I believe that the fascination young people have for forbidden activities would decrease if drugs weren't forbidden, and the active marketing of drugs in schools would disappear as there would be no profit to be made there.

"CO2? This makes no sense. What possible connect can you make between CO2 and environmental damage?"

CO2 is now a pollutant, according to the EPA and some talentless hack named Al Gore. He made a horror film about it and how the faceless villain, CO2, is going to kill us all. Needless to say, it sucked.

American College of Pediatricians, June 2010 Marijuana Use: Legalization Not a Good Idea

"The negative physical and mental effects of marijuana use are well documented. It’s associated with lower educational accomplishment, lower work productivity, increased risks of motor vehicle accidents, and heart and lung disease. All forms of cannabis are mind-altering drugs due to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main active chemical in marijuana. THC affects nerve cells in the region of the brain where memories are formed. This makes it difficult for the user to recall recent events. Chronic exposure to THC may hasten the age related loss of nerve cells. Marijuana impairs a person’s judgment, coordination, balance, ability to pay attention and reaction time. Cannabis use in adolescence is a predictor of depression in later life. Cannabis induces psychotic symptoms and cognitive impairment in some individuals. Numerous mechanisms have been postulated for the link between cannabis use and attention deficits, psychotic symptoms, and neural desynchronization. Studies indicate that it impairs driving performance in the same way alcohol does, with users displaying the same lack of coordination on standard sobriety tests. Marijuana is second only to alcohol as a factor contributing to traffic accidents involving loss of life. Students who regularly use marijuana have lower grade and test scores and are less likely to achieve personal goals."

******

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Marijuana: A Continuing Concern for Pediatricians

"The abuse of marijuana by adolescents is a major health problem with social, academic, developmental, and legal ramifications. Marijuana is an addictive, mind-altering drug capable of inducing dependency.

There is little doubt that marijuana intoxication contributes substantially to accidental deaths and injuries among adolescents, especially those associated with motor vehicle crashes, and is frequently involved in incidents related to driving while intoxicated.

Adolescents who use marijuana are 104 times as likely to use cocaine compared with peers who never smoked marijuana."

it seems like this gets framed as a net social good/harm issue all the time when it is really a rights issue.

we make personal choices about the cost/benefit of drinking a big gulp, eating friend food, going hang-gliding, or getting a nose ring. this gives us freedom to do as we like and have a different view on what are individual issues.

yet suddenly, we throw this out the window around drugs. eating fried food has no societal benefit other than the fact that we enjoy it. you don't need it. it's not good for you.

so shall we ban it on social welfare grounds?

it seems inconsistent to allow fried food but oppose drugs.

yet i'll bet most of the anti drugs crowd has had french fries in their lives and would howl if they were taken away "for their own good".

"but i am not fat. i am a respnsible french fry user" they might say. or, "well, i'm fat but that's my business" might retort another. but they never seem to then extend this logic to drugs.

did acid destroy the productivity and life of steve jobs?

did smoking pot and using cocaine keep obama (and Kennedy for that matter) from being president?

they seek to take liberty before people do anyhting, violating notions of innocent until proven guilty.

use drugs or get drunk and beat your neighbor up and you should be accused of assault and battery like anyone else. but to assume, a priori, that drugs will make you do that violates due process and offends notions of liberty.

until you violate the rights of another, your recreational activities are your own business.

with all due respect, you sound pretty out of touch with some of these notions.

there are casual users of most drugs.

half the tech industry on the west coast is a casual drug user. do some get into trouble, sure, but so do drinkers.

but, the real question is SO WHAT?

just because bad things happen is not a reason to punish the innocent. read my previous post.

all this calculus of harm is irrelevant. it's a personal choice and if i want to smoke crack or put a bone through my nose and dress up like raggedy anne, it's no business of yours or the governments until i violate someones rights.

this is just authoritarian paternalism masquerading as public welfare.

why do you get to decide what is best for everyone?

will you extend this policy into the rest of your leisure activities and dietary habits?

how about your speech?

the "public welfare" standard being used here would never be accepted in these areas. "we ahev rights" you would exclaim. and you would be right.

so why seek to take the rights of others here? this seems like hypocrisy?

why does one size fits all seem like a good solution here? you are on your own to eat and drink booze, but need a statist dad for drugs?

Don't be cute about every drug user being a felon because drugs are illegal. How many felonies not including the felony of being a user? You know, robberies, assaults, murders, etc.

Since you're the one who is making the case to reduce everyone's liberty, the burden of proof is on you. As a free man, I don't need a reason to do things. As a person who wants to reduce my freedom, you do need a reason.

If you don't have the answers to the questions you're asking, then your position is a house of cards. If you're argument depends on those statistics and you fail to provide them, then your argument utterly fails.

"Since you're the one who is making the case to reduce everyone's liberty, the burden of proof is on you. As a free man, I don't need a reason to do things. As a person who wants to reduce my freedom, you do need a reason.

If you don't have the answers to the questions you're asking, then your position is a house of cards. If you're argument depends on those statistics and you fail to provide them, then your argument utterly fails."

precisely, but i would even go a step further.

bruce's position (apart from trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof onto the tyrannized) is like banning kitchen knives because they can be used in robberies or jailing adolescents because they engage in rape more than do prepubescents.

even if drug use leads to more crime (itself a deeply questionable assumption especially when weighed against the violent crime around distribution and sales that criminalization causes) that is still not a reason to ban it.

owning a gun makes you far more likely to shoot someone. that's not reason to ban them. owning a car makes you far more likely to run someone over. yet we do not ban those.

the possibility of a bad outcome is NOT enough to convict or legislate.

Doesn't all this come down to moderation? I'll bet a good number of the people who read this blog consume alcohol. A number have done pot. Maybe some have done heavier things. But how many of us are degenerate lowlifes? I'm not. Dr. Perry's not. Morganovich, Peak Trader, Methinks, Ron H., Larry G., are not. Doesn't this show that careful consumption can cause little to no harm? Hell, wine and beer and vodka have medicinal purposes!

I would like to think that everyone over 18 in this nation is grown-up enough to understand the consequences of his actions.

i must take exception to your comment as i am, in point of fact, a degenerate lowlife. please do not lump me in with respectable citizens in the future or i shall be forced to commence libel proceedings.

"I'm totally for free speech, within broadly conventional mores. I don't believe in psychosis or murder promotion, "commenting" on the families or "heritage" of others or their religions, or similar. "

I'm not aware of any policy, but this is Prof. Perry's blog, so you would have to ask him. I know he prefers that we be reasonably civil to one another, but beyond that I'm not aware of limits.

That said, since this IS Prof. Perry's blog, free speech doesn't apply to commentators.

He can allow or disallow any one, or any speech he chooses, for any reason. The ultimate free market. His house, his rules.

There are not yet any government intrusions into this area as there are in other private enterprises.

Of course I have an opinion. I have several of them. Which one would you like to hear about? You can see some of them on this very thread in comments I wrote in Nov 2010.

I have very strong opinions on the War on Drugs, and a minor opinion of the chart at the head of this post.

I have no reason to believe the chart is incorrect, so I don't see how it could be used by those who favor the current criminalization of weed to the detriment of those who favor legalization, unless the former have no use for factual information and prefer appeals to emotion and illogic, which does seem to be the case based on some comments on the subject at this blog.

"By the way, one of my posts that was deleted just simply showed the facts on the last four weeks of gasoline prices including YoY percentage changes."

You should really do yourself a favor and email Prof Perry at the address on the front page and ask him directly if he indeed wants you to leave, or if he is censoring your comments. I seriously doubt that's the case.

What's more likely is that you have encountered Blogger's obnoxious spam filter, which selects comments to filter based on no logical or meaningful methodology I can determine, except that ones with links - especially multiple links - are most susceptible.

Those comments then appear later, as if by magic, after Prof Perry checks the spam bucket, which he does fairly frequently.

At other times comments are held for moderation for whatever reason, and like suspected spam, appear later as if by magic. I suspect the frequent multiple posts we see, result from this due to repeated presses of the "publish" button when a comment doesn't show up right away.

No thanks, it's neither important enough nor do I have a lot of free time today.I think you already understand my point, but just disagree.

"By the way, one of my posts that was deleted just simply showed the facts on the last four weeks of gasoline prices including YoY percentage changes."

You should really do yourself a favor and email Prof Perry at the address on the front page and ask him directly if he indeed wants you to leave, or if he is censoring your comments. I seriously doubt that's the case.

That's why I pointed out the 3 separate posts, and that at least 2 of them were completely innocuous. The third was quite dark.

What's more likely is that you have encountered Blogger's obnoxious spam filter, which selects comments to filter based on no logical or meaningful methodology I can determine, except that ones with links - especially multiple links - are most susceptible.

There were no links in any of the three, and as I noted, one was simply YoY prices and change rates for gasoline. Nothing else.

The other was just about me being short the S&P.

The three weren't even posted right after each other as I recall.

Anyhow, thanks for the efforts.

I have had two links with attempted humorous images be removed, and that happens and I understand it.

Those comments then appear later, as if by magic, after Prof Perry checks the spam bucket, which he does fairly frequently.

At other times comments are held for moderation for whatever reason, and like suspected spam, appear later as if by magic. I suspect the frequent multiple posts we see, result from this due to repeated presses of the "publish" button when a comment doesn't show up right away.